================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp:120
@@ +119,3 @@
+static cl::opt<bool> ClEnableKasan(
+ "enable-kasan", cl::desc("Enable KernelAddressSanitizer instrumentation"),
+ cl::Hidden, cl::init(false));
----------------
Um, `asan-kernel`? Looks like most of the flags in this file start with
`asan-`, it makes sense to keep it.
================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp:394
@@ -385,1 +393,3 @@
+ : FunctionPass(ID), CompileKernel(CompileKernel || ClEnableKasan),
+ AsanCtorFunction(NULL), AsanInitFunction(NULL) {
initializeAddressSanitizerPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
----------------
nullptr
You can also consider using brace-or-equal initializer here.
================
Comment at: tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.h:56
@@ +55,3 @@
+ /// \brief Check if either ASan or KASan is enabled.
+ bool hasAsanOrKasan() const;
+
----------------
glider wrote:
> samsonov wrote:
> > Um, no, I mean to add `hasOneOf` method that would take ArrayRef of
> > sanitizer kinds and return true iff at least one of them is enabled. Then
> > you could call it as...
> This is basically the `has()` method without the `llvm::countPopulation(K) ==
> 1` check.
> Why not use a mask instead of an ArrayRef?
Yeah, using the mask is also ok. But let's make the name different, so that
`has()` method would still always accept a single sanitizer.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D10411
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
